2020 (1) TMI 1617 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the credit has been availed after six months of date of issue of invoice - HELD THAT - The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (5) TMI 1432 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that in these circumstances, credit cannot be denied for the invoices issued prior to 01/09/2014 when the time limit for availing the Cenvat Credit introduced. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against denial of Cenvat Credit on capital goods.

Analysis:
1. Issue of denial of Cenvat Credit: The appellant, M/s Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the denial of Cenvat Credit on capital goods. The denial was based on the grounds that the credit was availed after six months of the date of issue of the invoice. However, the appellant argued that the invoices were issued before the amendment prescribing the time limit for availing credit within six months. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that credit cannot be denied for invoices issued prior to the introduction of the time limit for availing Cenvat Credit. The appellant's argument was accepted, and the Tribunal found that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the High Court of Delhi. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to adjustment of tax on final products accrues to an Assessee on the date when they paid the tax on the raw materials, and this right continues until the facility available thereto gets worked out.

2. Retrospective effect of the amendment: The Tribunal further discussed the retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 4(1) CCRs prescribing a time limit for claiming Cenvat Credit. Citing various legal precedents, including the decision in Jayam & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner and Samtel India Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, it was established that a provision introduced for the first time cannot be given retrospective effect. The Gujarat High Court's decision in Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India was also referenced to emphasize that the benefit of credit of eligible duties on purchases made under the existing CENVAT credit rules was a vested right that could not be taken away with retrospective effect. Therefore, in the present case, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment prescribing a time limit for claiming Cenvat Credit would not apply to consignments where the import took place before the amendment was introduced.

3. Decision and Conclusion: Relying on the legal principles and precedents discussed, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the denial of Cenvat Credit on the basis of the time limit for availing credit was not applicable to the appellant's case. The judgment highlighted the importance of respecting vested rights and the principle that amendments should not be given retrospective effect to take away existing rights or impose new liabilities. The decision was in favor of the appellant, M/s Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., and the appeal was allowed based on the legal analysis and precedents presented during the proceedings.